Manuscript Evaluation Form: Book review
Article Title
1. Writing*
The writing is clear, objective, and concise. The separation of the text into sections and subsections is pertinent and facilitates the reading process.
2. Mastery*
The author(s) of the review unequivocally, briefly, and cohesively demonstrate the main contributions/ideas/provocations of the work under review.
3. Argumentation*
The author(s)' argument is clear and cohesive, described in a robust manner and using clear and plausible connections between constructs, concepts and ideas.
4. Critical dialogue*
The author(s) of the review critically (courteously and impersonally) analyze the arguments and ideas presented by the book's authors and how they position or advance the literature in the field of research in question.
5. General Evaluation*
Please provide a qualitative assessment of the manuscript in the space below. It is recommended that comments be provided on each of the items evaluated above, and that they be as clear and specific as possible. This space is also intended for general comments that could lead to an improvement in the manuscript. Such comments may pertain to the structure of the manuscript (division of sections/subsections) or other useful comments for the authors.
6. Reviewer Conclusion*
(Recommendation):
7. In compliance with Open Science, we ask if you (reviewer) agree with the publication of the manuscript evaluation reports, according to the following options:*
